Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you remember the reference?I read a very thought-provoking piece a few days ago - which I can't find now, of course - which argued that in a way, Mr. Folau's church had failed him, by telling him that this is the only way to be a good Christian with a high public profile, and not equipping him to be an effective evangelist in ways which are appropriate in his context.
Should he have said it? Well, I don't think it's an effective proclamation of the good news of Christ, but maybe that's not the point. Should he be fired for it? I can understand why it happened; and he knew the consequences before he did it.
All around, it seems to me we need to find better ways to have difficult conversations, and perhaps the choice of medium here is a big part of the problem.
@No Username Found, no, Australia does not have the same legal underpinnings for freedom of religion as America.
A lot of people dont get it.First of all, it's my view that if you make an oath (i.e. sign a contract) you are obligated to keep your word. Simple as that.
Secondly, if it is so important that you make a public statement on a controversial topic, you do so knowing full well the risks and implications, and if you go on with it you have made a decision you're willing to accept the consequences.
My question in this matter is what purpose did it serve for this statement to be made? What made it necessary to be said now by him and why? Many people hold the same belief and many of those who do not hold that belief already know the conservative Christian position. It's not like it's been kept a secret until now. So what was so compelling that he had to throw himself on his sword for this? I don't get it.
Can you remember the reference?
I'd be interested to know how christians intend to handle such matters. It must apply to quite a broad spectrum of livelihoods.
I read a very thought-provoking piece a few days ago - which I can't find now, of course - which argued that in a way, Mr. Folau's church had failed him, by telling him that this is the only way to be a good Christian...
Thank you for the information. In regards to the OP, the Gospel at its very core is offensive. Offensive because before someone can see the need for a Savior, they must first be confronted with their sin. However, just as the Holy Spirit convicts us lovingly, not condemningly, we too ought to approach people with the Gospel in a similar fashion.@No Username Found, no, Australia does not have the same legal underpinnings for freedom of religion as America.
Thats a fair point. As long as the contract was legal in the first place, and you walked in with full knowledge of what would happen if you broke the contract, then you must accept the consequences.The gate swings both ways. In my town, two lesbian Catholic School teachers were fired when it was discovered they were both in same gender marriages. Now if you are a liberal, you might cry, "Foul! Discrimination!" Yet they signed a contract knowing full well the values of their employer and then they violated that contract. Doesn't our word mean anything anymore?
Well, that's a horse of a different color.I think he said they would all "go to hell if they do not repent". So he's just telling it like it is.
Yes that is correct - the point is that he is essentially saying - If you belong to [insert list of sinful behaviours] then your a bad person and will pay for it.I think he said they would all "go to hell if they do not repent". So he's just telling it like it is.
Yes that is correct - the point is that he is essentially saying - If you belong to [insert list of sinful behaviours] then your a bad person and will pay for it.
No-one disputes that Israel is a genuine person and a good person. The issue is being divisive on a public platform. His sponsors and Australian rugby dont want those in unmarried relationships [or their kids], or those that are gay, to be referred to negatively by a high profile employee. Its not in their best interests. Hence why he had the contractual obligations to keep his religious views to himself.
No - On the contrary - His employer was explicit that such views should not be placed in the public domain. This is not the first time he had breached his obligations. He was previously warned by his employer for making similar statements.what prompted him to make these views public?
was he prompted by his employer to make a statement that would have been contrary to his beliefs on these issues?
No - On the contrary - His employer was explicit that such views should not be placed in the public domain. This is not the first time he had breached his obligations. He was previously warned by his employer for making similar statements.
Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.
Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.
Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.
Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.
Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.
Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.
Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments
Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.
So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.
This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.
you may not have understood the question.
did his employer put him in a position where he had to endorse or approve of these lifestyles?
No - They wanted no endorsement of homosexuality or sexual relationships outside of marriageyou may not have understood the question.
did his employer put him in a position where he had to endorse or approve of these lifestyles?
You raise some interesting points. Would they extend to politicians. Is it appropriate that a politician represents his christian [or other religion] regardless of whether his constituency holds to those views.Rugby Australia has a right to impose contractual conditions on its players and officials in order to maintain its relationship with the general public, supporters and sponsors. Folau was clearly aware of the contractual conditions under which he was employed – he had already been warned several times as a result of earlier outbursts. Whether Folaus’ comments were based on religious conviction or secular reasoning is not material. Rugby Australia had every right to dismiss him for harassment and vilification.
On a broader note: I am becoming increasingly weary of the Christian view that otherwise unacceptable behaviour, by Christian organisations or individuals, should be accepted by the broader society based on religious justification. This line of argument has allowed for discrimination, misogyny, denial of rights and various abuses. As a society we have tended not to question “religious” reasons allowing religion to get away with behaviour which is totally unacceptable in secular society.
The #Metoo movement is exposing previously ignored male harassment of females. Perhaps it’s time for a similar movement to make it clear to those Christians and Christian organisations, who expect special exemption for behaving badly, that “Enough is Enough”.
OB
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?